Timeline for Is there a biological reason for women to be weaker than men (in the same weight category)?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 19, 2022 at 18:53 | comment | added | user32213 | I've heard somewhere too that muscle fibers seem to be more type 1 for women than men on average, making it seem like they are built more for endurance and strength. But I don't have the research on hand | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 19:40 | comment | added | G__ | The calcium & iron claim is also from Rippetoe&Kilgore. I don't know what their source is on that claim, but I think it's secondary in any case as weaker women is not an American phenomenon, just an interesting tangent. | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 19:29 | comment | added | G__ | Well muscle mass equals strength is an oversimplification. Muscle mass contributes to strength, of course, but there is an aspect of neural utilization efficiency at play as well. | |
| Aug 9, 2011 at 17:15 | comment | added | M.K. | Well, I looked up the book from Rippetoe & Kilgore. It seems OK, but they talk about research without giving references to their sources. Some proof that muscle mass equals strength would be interesting. I can't find a way to access the text of the study about the testosterone. Know about any other? Also, women deficient in calcium and iron? Where does that come from? This may be a good idea for another F&N question. | |
| Aug 7, 2011 at 14:50 | history | edited | G__ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Aug 7, 2011 at 14:25 | history | edited | G__ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added pubmed study on effects of hormones on muscle protein synthesis
|
| Aug 7, 2011 at 13:57 | history | answered | G__ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |